PRESIDENT OBAMA UNHAPPY ABOUT NO BUDGET DEAL

Well the Friday July 22, 2011 deadline has come and gone and it’s after six on the east coast and there is no debt ceiling deal. As you know the Republicans passed that “cut, cap, and balance” bill that would have cut six trillion from the deficit. But the senate voted that proposal down today by 51 to 46 with some Democrats abstaining. But never fear, we were told, the President had a deal going with John Boehner. Well that deal fell through because Boehner was afraid of all these tea party republicans that had signed this “no new taxes” pledge to this one conservative. So the President held a press conference at three today and I listened to it on the radio KNX 1070. But they broke off coverage before it was concluded. One can’t help but think at some point the American people are going to perceive the Republicans as being the intransigent ones and therefore villanize them. It would seem that John Boehner and these tea baggers don’t care a bit whether the nation defaults or not. Apparently the House is going in recess over the weekend so we won’t be hearing any fresh news on this matter for days.

Last night it was ABC news and Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune, and then the Vampire Diaries. I slept well but was anxious and restless before breakfast and I wasn’t sure why. I finally decided to go ahead and pay the phone bill even though the check might bounce. I’ve checked with all sorts of people and they all say that there was no fifteen dollar cut in the S S I check. If there is, the account will be overdrawn, but only by a dollar or two, which is ironic. But I wasn’t going to face that robo-call maze again and give them my account number, my PIN and then they ask me for the secret password. That’s already happened twice. I had Stephanie Miller on and brewed coffee.

We had Rice Krispies for breakfast and I got someone’s orange juice, and eventually we had pancakes and sausage. Probably the only time I was relaxed all day was the hour or so after breakfast. Last night I was thinking of doing a thing called “guess which statements about Christianity or true” and they would all be indicting kind of statements, and the punch line would be “they’re all true”. Then I thought of having the all skeptics network of Non Christians. I came up with maybe ten different format ideas and plot lines. But as you see we aren’t doing that one either.

ONTOLOGICAL QUESTIONS

There are at least four major proofs of God's existance. There is the moral argument that goes "Well, God is fair, and therefore God is moral and in the final judgement will reward the good for their deeds and punish the bad for their deeds". There is the Teological argument, by which we deduce that there is a purpose for all creation because certain things were designed that way, and therefore there had to be an Intelligent entity to give this all a thought, before he created it to begin with. Then there is the Cosmological argument, which is the computer logic or "linear logic" model by which any Variable in order to be accepted as having a value, has to be "backed up by something" and that circular arguments or "infinite regression" won't cut it. Then there is the Ontological argument. Onlology asks questions such as "What is real; what is truely valuable, what is Important". It may be Important for a young Christian to marry, yet it is not "urgent" that he do so. He may reason "I am a Christian now and there are certain sins that Christians don't commit. And if I continue with certain practices I run the risk of somewhere down the line comitting the unpardonable sin. Therefore I will get married to insure against this, because it it more important that I be right with the Lord than that I have a successful marriage". This is a Value judgement. On March 4th 1999 I was told for the first time - - and by a doctor, that I was an alcoholic. While it may be Important to deal with this problem it isn't necessarly Urgent. So then the doctor says "There is an A A meeting tonight. Why don't you go?" when clearly I was not interested in getting up in front of a room of strangers and declaring that I was an alcoholic, and presumably - would never drink again" We all intrinsically "know" what is right and wrong, even if we can't exactly "prove it in a test tube". This ontological argument is one I used about Time and my little "exestential delema" as I called it them, an Ontological delema. For example suppose we know that time proceeds twice as fast in galaxy A as opposed to galaxy B. Can we therefore way that Galaxy A is Faster than galaxy B. A pure "phenominalist" as I coin the term would say "No. Both Time systems are equally valid. It would be a "value judgement" to say that Galaxy system A is faster than Galaxy system B. Both just ARE and that's the best we can say. This is the sort of logic that's employed in a lot of liberal educational systems today. It's a one devoid of absolute standards. If one believes in an absolute truth- - nothing measurable in nature can shake him of that belief. He "Knows" it and that's the end of the discussion. The Ontological argument for the existance of God goes thusly, "I believe it. Therefore I know with certainty that it's True". (Selah)

COGITATION ON AN EARLY FRIDAY EVENING

Yesterday after dinner I was looking up various early Church fathers and such such as Polycarp, Ireneus, and Tertulian. Tertulian was more "physical" in his thinking process than any of his predecessors. Tertulian was the first theologian, supposedly, to say that the human soul definitely can not be reincarnated into another material form. The human soul was created at conception upon the union of the mother and the father and is thus in intrigal part of the physical DNA and such. Although Tertulian says, "the soul can struggle and also suffer apart from a body, and this is why the soul is able to suffer in Hell". Tertulian was the first to use the expression of "Trinity" in describing God. For the majority of the Christian churches at the time, Tertulian was condemned as a heritic for saying this. Also Tertulian declared that neither a fornacator nor a murderer can find redemption in the Church. Were this actually True and had the doctrine been accepted by the Church, than I would not qualify to become a Christian now, and would not have qualified on March 24th 1976. I was out on the patio sitting in a chair by the west fence musing on this all about the soul, and how perhaps it is intrigal to the body. When John Lennon had a few well chosen words for me. I won't repeat them. Several days earlier he had a four word message for me, "Don't sell yourself short". These words were along that same vein. Lennon gave me some things to think about. I found his remarks to be very interesting. In fact, after I'm dead I'd like to make an appointment with him to hear more of them. According to that "ethisist" on KNX 1070 we all routinely pass up all sorts of oppeertunities to better ourselves. So I was just sitting there thinking "What is my destiny in life? Is it to discover the secret of the Romulan cloaking device?" We can guess it has something to do with shifting the space matter occupies, to some other space. But it can't be a fifth dimensional shift. (I was told it absolutely not this) It reminds me of that Laural and Hardy skit where L & H are running from somebody and they happen onto this shack where there is a whiggy scientist hold up in there and they ask him what he is doing and he says "I'm inventing a plan that flies without any propellers" and they respond "Then how does it get off the ground?" and he responds, "That's the part I haven't figured out yet".

OTHER KINDS OF DIMENSIONS

All that stuff about Tertulian and the soul made me think in "physicality" terms. For instance something can have several "aspects" of reality to it. I have come up with what I call four "lower dimensions" of things. They are "lower" because they do refer to things. My current dimension triangle is thus extended from six to ten with the four at the bottom of the pyramid referring to the four aspects of things. So now we have four aspects of physicality. "Aspect" can also be translated "point of view". But also "Aspect" can refer to a whole dimension, and this is how I use it here. The Greeks had their own four aspects of things being the Ideal, the Form, the Substance, and the Image, the latter being the "least real" and the "Idea" being the most real. I don't have the same four, and I don't gradate mine according to values. All of mine are equally important. We have first what I call the "essence" of an object or person. This is "what is it's nature as perceived by a perfectly objective (preferably human) viewer. So we talk about the "essence" of certain things or their "essential nature" without which, you don't have the thing even though you may have all the others. As such I take offense to Walter Martin's book "Essential Christianity" because in that book, Christianity is not love, forgiveness, kindness, peace or any of those qualities. "Essential Christianity" to Dr. Martin is - - - Theology, and rather dry theology. So you see how words can be misused. Besides this there is also the form of an object. This could be something like a blueprint or perhaps some code, like a genetic code. The word of course could also mean "shape" or anything pertaining to math. Then we have the materiality or substance of an object, or to put it in scientific terms- - its Mass. And finally we have the purpose or function of an object. This theistic or Tertulian line of logic would suggest that the Creator God had a "good reason" for everything he did. An atheist might well say however that "Though you can easily acertain the function of man made artifacts, the same cannot be said for objects or life occurring in Nature." Well, to my way of thinking, it needn't be a Good reason. It could be an idiotic reason. But my notion is that if someone took the trouble to Create it- - than he must have gone through SOME mental processes to do it. So these are the four dimensions on the lowest rung of the pyramid. Then we have the three spacial dimensions. Then we have the two dimensions of Time. (this involved the fifth dimension) Finally we have something new for you all and that is the Karmic dimension. This dimension has singularity in that there is only one BEST way to behave at any given instant. Some may accuse me of wanting to have a "mistake free life". That KNX ethisist would argue that we should always be looking for those Oppertunities do "do good" and to better ourselves and the world. Of course as with matter this Karmic force has its own "gravitational property" that gives the individual "more space" in which to opperate. (the karmic funnel) One karmicly ascending can be said to be "living below their karmic means" whereas one who is in a process of descending can be said to be "living above their karmic means". In the first instance they are building up "karmic capital" and in the second they are tearing it down and "spending" their own capital. One will note that karma refers to their height in the funnel - - rather than "orbital speed". My assertion is that Christianity is spending its Karmia a lot more quickly than it is earning it. So now we have this triangulation of ten.

We now come to our second model, which is our old model. This model also has six balls or dimensions and the like, and is like our old model (or former postings) except for the top ball. The top dimension is now the Zero dimension. Perhaps we have made that psychic stuff just too complicated. To put in simpler terms even George Bush can understand, let's call this one the zero space dimension. Formerly it was hyperspace, but zero is an easier concept. As such a "psychic connection" in mental energies of different people- - is just contact in the zero dimension meaning no space between them and as we formerly said "in a sence they are the same thing". When one enters hyper space - - it's the initial acceleration of speed where the whole hyperbolic thing comes in. After moch three - - this too fades away. In hyper-space what you may physically see is just some gray mass with perhaps rainbow effects running through it. It is equivelent to the dreaded "Null Space" of Star Trek. It has a common danger with that in that there is a real danger of "getting lost in it' and never finding your way out. Like hyperbolic trig- - - it's the curved part near a ONE X value where there is the most interest. There comes a point in number value where hyperbolic trig ceases to be either interesting or that significant. All the other dimensions in this six-element model are the same.

We now come to our third model, which is a new model and I'd like to refer to a letter of some weeks ago. "I've been doing a lot of number and geometric stuff lately. Yesterday I came up with an opperation called "Pyramidization" of numbers, which is "Triangulation" carried to a third dimension. Excel already has the numbers - - it's "choose 3" instead of "choose 2". The whole "choose" function is normally used in my mind for "pizza toppings" choices. But they say it also can be used for picking possible teams in a party for games." This third model of dimensions is what I call the "after death model". This is a 3 D rather than a 2 D model in that there are seen six faces on four sides of this tetrahedon. In this model the top ball is Time, of all things - - singular time as we know it in our four dimensional space-time. The next tier down is three balls that represent - - Essence - - Form - - and Purpose - - but not materiality, which has dropped out. The bottom six balls could be seen two different ways. One way is to borrow from the I Ching model of Primary triagrams and Nuclear triagrams. Each Hexigram contains two of both. One could view the primary triagrams as the three spacial dimensions in our Universe as we know it and the three balls in the Center of the triangle- - would be the nuclear triagrams or the three "Death dimensions" experianced only upon Death. Or one could look at the bottom rung of this model another way and say that all Six are Death dimensions we come to experiance only after Death. The choice is up to you. And this concludes our lecture.